Forum OpenACS Q&A: Re: Greenpeace.org nominated for Webby-Awards

Collapse
Posted by Mike Sisk on
You want to make most of the earth beautiful and pristine? It's easy, all you have to do, is make everybody on Earth, everybody, at least as wealthy as Americans are today.
Won't happen. Can't happen. The Earth can't support the whole world living at the level of the average Amercian. The US represents less than 5% of the world's population yet consumes more than 50% of the world's resources (the exact percentage is debatable, but it's certainly quite high).

It's not just energy* either; fresh water is a big problem. And solid waste disposal. My last job in the geo field was in southern California working on landfills -- huge problem that most folks don't think about.

Imagine if every family in China (or Africa) had 2 cars (aveaging 15 mpg) and ate at McDonalds every day. There is no way the earth (or the economy) can support this.

There is no magic bullet that'll solve the environmental problem. And Amercians ain't going to give up their standard of living (or SUVs), either. This is a problem.

--
*   It's interesting to note, with one exception, that nearly all our forms of energy production are basically stored sunlight. The energy in fossil fuels is released by breaking down chains of molecules put in place by the sun (a long time ago). Solar is obvious. Wind power is generated by heating of the atmosphere (mostly) and is very hazardous to birds. Hydro power is solar power in that the sun allows evaporation of water into the atmosphere so precipitation can take place -- thus moving the water from a lower elevation to a higher so we can extract its energy. Geothermal? Hard to say -- it's a mix of heat from radiogenic decay, heat from gravity, and left-over heat from the formation of the solar system.

Nuclear power is the exception. And in the long run (as it looks now) the only viable means of energy production -- risky as it is -- for the future. Fusion looks better that fission, but it's still has a long way to go to be viable and it still generates intense radiation.

Ansel Adams was a proponent of nuclear power for these reasons (and for the lack of air-born emissions that interfer with photography) and really took a beating about it from his environmental friends.